Fracking in New York: Weighing Risks and Benefits
By Robert A. Michaels, PhD, CEP, and Randy W. Simon, PhD
Introduction
“Fracking,” short for “hydrofracturing,” in New York State would enable drillers to extract gas from vast deposits in the Marcellus Shale, which also extends into Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio. The Southern Tier and Western New York State include a high proportion of economically depressed areas that might benefit from fracking if done correctly.! Exploitation of these gas deposits in Pennsylvania and beyond already has nurtured a profitable industry. The costs, however, have included adverse impacts on public and environmental health (described below), and on the social fabric and economic life of affected communities. Alarmists prejudge these adverse impacts as being intrinsic to fracking, and therefore inevitable, based upon past experience. We believe that a more realistic view is that early phases of implementation in many industries, such as aviation, reveal problems that are often mitigated with further development.
Robert A. Michaels
“Without prejudging whether fracking can be undertaken safely, we discuss the science of fracking, and explore whether it can be accomplished with minimal negative impacts.”
The magnitude of gas reserves in the Marcellus and other shale formations is controversial. Estimates made at the beginning of the shale boom recently have come down substantially. Nonetheless, the era of largescale exploitation of this resource is well under way, and has brought the issues of health and environmental impacts of fracking to the forefront. Rapid expansion of fracking technology adds urgency to issues raised by its use.
Without prejudging whether fracking can be undertaken safely, we discuss the science of fracking, and explore whether it can be accomplished with minimal negative impacts.
Background
The role of natural gas in the overall U.S. and global energy portfolio has grown dramatically be-
cause of the emergence of shale gas as an economical resource for large-scale production. Shale gas is natural gas that is trapped within formations of shale, which are fine-grained sedimentary rocks that can contain large amounts of gas and oil. The existence of extensive deposits of shale gas has been known for decades, but extracting it was uneconomical until development of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing technologies in the 1980s and 1990s. Indeed, shale gas accounted for only 1.6% of U.S. natural gas production in 2000.7 Development of new technologies under governmentsponsored programs and a successful demonstration project in the Barnett Shale in north Texas together fueled a boom in shale oil production around the world. In the U.S., the Marcellus Formation, spanning much
of the Appalachian Basin, propelled a major expansion of the U.S. gas industry starting in 2008. By 2010, shale gas accounted for more than 20 percent of U.S. natural gas production and, by the end of 2011, it reached 34 percent.
Randy W. Simon
The term “hydrofracking” denotes forceful injection of fluid at high temperature and pressure to break up (“fracture”) deep bedrock, and thereby extract trapped natural gas. The term is a euphemism, because ‘hydro’ implies misleadingly that the injected fluid is just water. Actually it is a mixture of water (98-99.5 percent) and a proprietary cocktail of organic and inorganic additives including sand and fluids (0.5-2.0 percent): acids to improve gas flow, biocides to prevent clogging, corrosion and scale inhibitors to prevent leaks, gels or gums to add viscosity, and friction reducers to maintain pressure from surface pumps to the furthest reaches of the wells.t These fluids may include toxic chemicals that are linked to cancer and other adverse health and environmental effects.> The specific composition of fluids is unknown, however, because the gas drilling industry has guarded the composition of fracking fluids.
New technologies now enable horizontal drilling in all radial directions, like spokes of a bicycle wheel, from the base of a vertical shaft, producing a shaped array of horizontal shafts miles beneath groundwater aquifers to deliver fracking fluids explosively. The same shafts then collect natural gas from all directions in an area of approximately 640 acres® (or more if horizontal shafts extend up to several kilometers”) delivering it to the
NYSBA Municipal Lawyer | Fall 2013 | Vol. 27 | No. 3
central vertical shaft that conveys gas upward, through aquifers, to the surface. In a perfect world, natural
gas is collected for sale, and toxic fracking fluids are recycled. Residual gas and fracking fluids remain in the fractured bedrock, but are safely sequestered miles beneath the surface, never to pollute air, surface soil, or water. The real world and real bedrock, however, are imperfect.
Natural gas and fracking fluids must be contained reliably within lined well shafts, from which leakage of gas and fracking fluids otherwise can occur if containment is inadequate. Leakage, especially near the surface, can contaminate groundwater, surface water, surface soils, and air. If recovered fracking fluids are stored in open lagoons, they can leach into soils and groundwater and vaporize into air. Contaminated groundwater or surface water used for residential or institutional drinking supplies also can pose risks to public health.® In Pennsylvania, some homes were reported to have gas emanating from water faucets, causing odors and posing risks of fire and even explosion, though the linkage to fracking has been difficult to verify?
Global Issues
The main global issue is whether fracking will generate more planetary greenhouse warming than its energy alternatives. Greenhouse gas generation from nuclear power, for example, is virtually nonexistent, and the potential for harnessing clean energy from sustainable solar, geothermal, wind, tidal, and other renewable sources is enormous. The current political and economic environment, however, is hostile to nuclear power; and renewables, for a combination of technical and economic reasons, are not yet in a position to provide for the majority of our energy needs. Thus, for a substantial period of time, we must rely heavily upon fossil fuels.
Natural gas is cleaner to burn than coal, oil, or gasoline. Coal is used to generate 80 percent of the world’s electricity, and constitutes the largest manmade source of greenhouse gas emissions. Replacement of coal plants by natural gas plants would cut carbon dioxide (CO,) emissions by 30-50 percent, and virtually eliminate emissions of mercury and other toxic metals, nitrogen oxides, and acid gases such as sulfates that contribute to acid rain.!° Replacing gasoline or diesel fuel with natural gas in vehicles would yield a 10-30 percent reduction in CO, emissions." Clearly, if natural gas can be extracted without negative consequences, its use as a replacement for other fossil fuels would benefit pubic health and the environment.
The salient question is therefore whether substantial substitution of fracking-derived natural gas for coal and oil in power generation, and for oil in auto-
motive transportation, will reduce the climate effects of greenhouse gas emissions. If methane leakage from fracking is excessive, it might not. Greenhouse gases are released not only from using natural gas, but also from leakage of natural gas during production. Most of this leaked gas is methane, the primary constituent of natural gas. Unfortunately, investigators have failed to reach consensus on either the magnitude of the methane release problem or its variation among gas fields and among well operators. Estimates of methane leakage range from as little as 1% to as much as 10% of what is being extracted from natural gas wells.!
Methane release from fracking contributes to total release of methane and, more broadly, to total release of greenhouse gases. In 2009, with fracking on the rise but the U.S. economy in recession, methane constituted only a small fraction of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA).!9 Even when increased to equivalent CO, to account for its greater greenhouse warming potency, methane constituted only 11.1 percent of the total. However, this value cannot and should not be accepted uncritically. Data on methane leakage from fracking are incomplete and variable.
The preponderance of greenhouse gas effects is exerted by CO, which accounted for 81.5 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2009, if EIA’s methane leakage value is correct. The EIA reported that, in early 2012, CO, emissions reached a 20-year minimum," constituting approximately 70 percent of CO, emission reductions targeted by the Kyoto Protocol relative to future forecasts that were made in 1998. This reduction of carbon emissions relating to energy consumption EIA attributed to increased shale gas production, largely accomplished via fracking. The implication is that increased methane emission due to fracking may be the price of decreasing CO, emissions, with net benefit regarding global climate change.
A different picture, however, emerges from extensive modeling of climate impacts of large-scale replacement of coal with natural gas obtained by fracking. The models assume a variety of methane release rates. Models incorporating high methane release rates predict a greater rise in global temperatures than if coal burning continued. That is, methane leakage would contribute more to global warming than the gases that would have been emitted by burning coal. Likewise,
a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences concluded that methane leakage rates would have to be below 1.6 percent for naturalgas-powered cars to exert less effect on climate change than cars running on gasoline.!5
A recent study by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,'* quantifies methane leakage at 190 on-shore natural gas sites. The EDF’s
NYSBA Municipal Lawyer | Fall 2013 | Vol. 27 | No. 3
conclusion is that extracting gas via fracking, when done properly, releases less methane than previously thought: only one percent leakage was reported. These results, however, do not necessarily document what is happening in the preponderance of fracking sites, as other recent studies have found dramatically higher methane leakage levels.!” Nonetheless, the EDF results do demonstrate that the fracking industry feasibly can reduce methane leakage to a very low level, if provided with economic and regulatory incentives to do so.
Transitions from mature technologies to emerging technologies often are characterized by relatively high environmental and public health impacts of the emerging technology, which may abate as the technology matures. Given the urgent time constraints for controlling global climate change, this transition in the case of fracking must be controlled more effectively than has been achieved during previous transitions. One approach that could help accomplish this goal would be to require the gas industry to continue quantifying methane leakage from shale wells, and to develop and implement a program to hold methane leakage to acceptable emission rates.
All methods of natural gas extraction result in some level of methane release into the atmosphere. This also is true of coal mining and other fossil fuel extraction activities. If shale gas is to continue to be a major source of energy, it must be extracted in a manner that substantially retains the environmental benefits of natural gas, and thereby mitigates the impacts of extracting and using coal and oil.
U.S. National Issues
The main national issue relating to fracking is the need to develop energy self-sufficiency and strategic independence from uncertain foreign energy sources. Our energy portfolio of domestic resources currently is dominated by coal. The abundance of coal and its resultant low price have provided a strong economic incentive for its continued use despite negative environmental and health consequences. Recently, however, fracking has reduced the price of natural gas, and strong demand for coal, especially in China, has increased its price domestically. As a result, reliance on gas has overtaken reliance on coal for energy in New York State.!® Coal is less versatile than natural gas, as shown by unsuccessful efforts to convert it to a vehicle fuel. These factors have in turn prolonged U. S. dependency on foreign oil. Thus, the U.S. may have a strong national interest in promoting the use of more versatile natural gas, even if obtained from environmentally costly fracking.
The costs of reliance upon foreign energy sources include political, economic, and military costs. These considerations may have led to a hands-off national
policy on fracking. The Obama Administration, however, appears to be seeking to restore some Federal oversight, despite gas industry opposition. Indeed, current Energy Secretary Ernest J. Moniz, a former MLLT. physics professor, is an advocate of accelerating replacement of oil and coal with natural gas,!? much
if not most of which would be obtained via fracking, and the EPA is conducting a major study of its potential impacts on drinking water supplies.”
New York State Issues
New York State is grappling with the question of whether, and under what conditions, fracking might be permitted.?! Based on the reports of environmental and public health concerns from other states, New York should consider, at a minimum, imposing conditions on fracking. For example, New York should provide incentives for the industry to prevent accidents by establishing a fracking “superfund” to cover damage, if it occurs. More generally, fracking should be regulated like any technology that potentially poses significant public health and environmental risks. Drillers should be required to avoid sensitive locations such as drinking-water reservoirs, and avoid damaged bedrock, such as previously drilled areas. They should be required to disclose the composition of fracking fluids that will be used, thereby assuring that detected contamination patterns can be matched to their source(s). Permits should specify use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Best Available Control Technology (BACT). BMPs and BACT for fracking should include monitoring equipment capable of detecting contaminant releases before they become unmanageable, which could include double-hull piping to detect leaks in the inner tube that would be contained by, and detected within, the outer tube pending repair or replacement. The regulatory package also should prohibit open, unlined lagoons, instead requiring closed containers for storing, recycling, and transporting fracking fluids.
Local Issues
At the local level, communities must balance between competing collective versus individual interests. Individuals may have an interest in selling mineral rights or rights-of-way to gas drillers. Communities, in contrast, typically have an interest in controlling the pace and direction of development and preventing environmental and public health problems.
Mechanisms for regional coordination of communities have been developed, for example, to select and permit a deep geological repository for long-term storage of low-level radioactive waste from nuclear power plants.” But, as may eventually be the case with fracking wastes, the problem of long-term storage of so-called “rad-wastes” remains a major obstacle to siting nuclear power plants, notwithstanding their neg-
NYSBA Municipal Lawyer | Fall 2013 | Vol. 27 | No. 3
ligible greenhouse gas emissions and global climate impact. For example, the proposed Yucca Mountain repository in a Nevada salt dome was considered and litigated for decades, and is still not built. A case study of cumulative impacts of fracking on brook trout in a Marcellus Shale watershed further illustrates trade-offs between energy development and the benefits provided by natural ecosystems.
Evolution of Energy Sources
Exploitation of most if not all energy sources poses risks to public health and the environment. Like the proverbial lunch, ‘ultimately it is not free. This raises the question of whether our society should exploit energy sources even though doing so poses risks. Modern societies can increase their energy efficiencies, but ultimately they still depend upon having access to substantial amounts of energy. The bottom line is that societies must manage the risks inherent in meeting their needs in order to keep those risks within acceptable limits.
Risk management includes evaluating fracking as a choice among alternative energy strategies, rather than simplistically viewing fracking as either safe or unsafe. Alternatives such as expanded coal mining and drilling for undersea oil have serious consequences. New energy sources tend to be the most difficult to reach, the most expensive to extract, and the most onerous for public health and the environment; indeed, this explains in part why their exploitation, and the enabling technologies, are relatively recent developments. The “ecological footprint” of an average barrel of oil accordingly has increased since 1950, and will continue to increase.4 For example, greenhouse gas emissions released in extracting a barrel of oil from newly exploited oil sands in Alberta, Canada were 23 times greater than emissions from extracting an Alberta barrel of oil via conventional drilling.» Thus, as the most accessible traditional sources of fossil energy become progressively more difficult to reach, and therefore more environmentally costly to extract, a decision to refrain from exploiting our abundant shale gas reserves conceivably could have a net negative environmental impact.
Nor will renewable resources provide a timely alternative to fracking—unless the pace of renewable resource development accelerates dramatically. Currently, exclusive reliance upon renewable resources remains impractical because of the relative immaturity of renewable energy technologies, as well as their intrinsic properties. The major renewable technologies, specifically wind and solar, deliver power only intermittently. Therefore they cannot meet the base power needs of the grid, and will remain insufficient pending availability of a viable energy storage technology or, alternatively, development of a sufficiently intercon-
nected smart grid that can shuttle power effectively to where it is needed on demand. Even the most optimistic studies, however, suggest that complete transition to renewable energy will take 20 to 30 years.”6 In that time, the damage to public health and the environment caused by, for example, the planned 1,000 or more additional coal burning plants (many in China)”” might be overwhelming.
“We must evolve, therefore, toward efficiency, moderation, and adoption of a sustainable ‘portfolio’ of energy sources.”
Human societies will continue to increase their use of energy. We must evolve, therefore, toward efficiency, moderation, and adoption of a sustainable ‘portfolio’ of energy sources. We must invest heavily in renewable energy sources so they eventually will suffice for our energy needs. At best, therefore, natural gas displacement of other fossil fuels, most notably coal, may represent a bridge between our near-term energy needs and long-term goal of meeting those needs sustainably. If we fail to do this in a proactive and timely manner— that is, immediately—it will be “a bridge too far,” and our options for addressing global climate change will close quickly and irrevocably.”* All of this means, most essentially, that continued development of depletable, non-renewable, non-sustainable energy sources such as natural gas from fracking requires adoption of the safest practices now, and a firm exit strategy that will assure a sustainable future.
Endnotes
1. Scott R. Kurkoski, The Marcellus Shale: A Game Changer for the New York Economy?, 84(1) New York State Bar Association, NYSBA Journal, 84(1):10-9, (January 2012).
2. Z. Wang etal., A Retrospective Review of Shale Gas Development in the United States: What Led to the Boom?, http:/ /www.rff.org/ RFF /documents/RFF-DP-13-12.pdf (October 19, 2013).
3. U.S. Energy Information Agency (US EIA) data, http://www. eia.gov /tools /faqs/how-much-shale-gas-produced-unitedstates (October 19, 2013).
4. CE, Clark et al., The Technology and Policy of Hydraulic Fracturing and Potential Environmental Impacts of Shale Gas Development, Environmental Practice, 14: p.2 49-61 (December 2012).
5. N.Y. State Dep’t of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC), Revised Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement On The Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program: Well Permit Issuance for Horizontal Drilling and HighVolume Hydraulic Fracturing to Develop the Marcellus Shale and Other Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs, http:/ /www.dec. ny.gov /data/dmn /rdsgeisfull0911.pdf (September 7, 2011); U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Study of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources: Progress Report, EPA 601/R-12/012, available at http://www2.epa.gov sites /production/ files /documents /hfreport20121214.pdf (October 19, 2013).
NYSBA Municipal Lawyer | Fall 2013 | Vol. 27 | No. 3
10.
1. 12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17. 18.
19.
Kurkoski, supra note 1.
William L. Ellsworth, Injection-Induced Earthquakes, Science, Vol. 341: p. 142 (Jul. 12, 2013) (summary), full article available at http://dx.doi.org /10.1126/science.1225942 (Jul. 12, 2013).
NYS DEC, supra note 5; US EPA, supra note 5.
NYS DEC, supra note 5, at 10-1 (“In 2009, the appearance
of methane in water wells in an area in Dimock Township, Susquehanna County, was attributed to excessive pressures and improperly or insufficiently cemented casings at nearby Marcellus wells. Numerous occurrences of methane migration into residential water wells during 2010 in Tuscarora, Terry, Monroe, Towanda and Wilmot Townships, Bradford County were attributed to the failure to properly case and cement wells.” (footnote omitted)), citing Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, In re Cabot Oil and Gas Corporation, Consent Order and Agreement at 3 (Nov. 4, 2009).
US EIA data, http:/ /www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq. cfm?id=73&t=11 (October 19, 2013).
Id.
Argonne National Laboratory investigators have estimated 2.0 percent over the life cycle of the well and 1.2 percent
for drilling, completion, and production activities. US. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates prior to large-scale adoption of fracking were 1.4 percent over the life cycle and 0.4 percent for drilling, completion and production. Clark, supra note 4. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported measurements of methane leakage rates of 4 percent at a shale gas field near Denver,
G. Pétron et al., Hydrocarbon Emissions Characterization in the Colorado Front Range, A Pilot Study, Journal of Geophysical Research, 117, D04304 (2012), and rates of nearly 9 percent
in the Uinta Basin in Utah, J. Tollefson, Methane Leaks Erode Green Credentials of Natural Gas, Nature, Jan. 12, 2013, at 493. Recently, the Environmental Defense Fund, the University of Texas at Austin, and nine major gas producers measured methane emission rates at U.S. shale gas wells. David T. Allen et al., Measurements of Methane Emissions at Natural
Gas Production Sites in the United States, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, PNAS Early Edition, www. pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1304880110 (2013).
US EIA, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the U.S., http://www.
eia.gov /environment/emissions/ghg_report/ghg_overview. cfm (Mar. 31, 2011).
Julie M. Carey, Surprise Side Effect of Shale Gas Boom: A Plunge in U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Forbes.com, http://www. forbes.com/sites /energysource /2012/12/07/surprisesideeffect-of-shale-gas-boom-a-plunge-in-u-s-greenhouse-gasemissions/ (Dec. 7, 2012).
R.A. Alvarez et al., Greater Focus Needed on Methane Leakage from Natural Gas Infrastructure, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(17): 6435-40 (April 2012).
David T. Allen et al., Measurements of Methane Emissions at Natural Gas Production Sites in the United States, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, PNAS Early Edition, www. pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1304880110 (2013).
Id.
Brian Nearing, Gas Topples Coal as King of Power—Dirty, Costly Coal-Fired Plants in the State Lose to Cheaper Fuel, Times Union Newspaper, http:/ /www.timesunion.com/business/article/ Gas-topples-coal-as-king-of-power-4415031.php (Apr. 6, 2013).
David Malakoff, Obama Taps Familiar Face for Energy Secretary, Science, http:/ /news.sciencemag.org/peopleevents /2013/03 /obama-taps-familiar-face-energy-secretary (Mar. 4, 2013).
20. US EPA, Office of Research and Development, Study of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources: Progress Report, EPA 601/R-12/012, http:// www2.epa.gov/sites/ production /files/documents /hfreport20121214.pdf (Dec. 2012).
21. NYSDEC, supra note 5.
22. Brian K. Paulson, Perspective: Yucca Mountain Saved by Obama's Bell, Environmental Practice, Vol. 11(3): p.218-9, September 2009.
23. David R. Smith et al., Shale Gas Development and Brook Trout: Scaling Best Management Practices to Anticipate Cumulative Effects, Environmental Practice, Vol. 14: p. 366-81 (Dec. 2012)
24. Debra J. Davidson & Jeffrey Andrews, Not All About Consumption, Science, Vol. 339: p. 1286-7 (Mar. 15, 2013).
25. Id.
26. Mark Z. Jacobson & Mark A. Delucchi, Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part I: Technologies, energy resources, quantities and areas of infrastructure, and materials, Energy Policy, Vol. 39, Issue 3, p. 1154-1169 (Mar. 2011).
27. Damian Carrington, More than 1,000 New Coal Plants Planned Worldwide, Figures Show. World Resources Institute Identifies 1,200 Coal Plants in Planning Across 59 Countries, with About Three-Quarters in China and India, The Guardian, http://www. theguardian.com/environment/2012/nov/20/coal-plantsworld-resources-institute (Nov. 19, 2012).
28. Thomas F. Stocker, The Closing Door of Climate Targets, Science, Voi. 339: p. 280-2 (Jan. 18, 2013).
Robert Michaels (ram@ramtrac.com) is an environmental toxicologist consulting in health risk assessment and management. He has served numerous corporations, the U.S. Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). He chaired the State of Maine Scientific Advisory Panel and the Certification Review Board of the Academy of Board Certified Environmental Professionals. Dr. Michaels has been Secretary of the NFPA Committee on Classification and Properties of Hazardous Chemicals, Board Member of the National Association of Environmental Professionals, and Member of the Editorial Advisory Boards of Springer-Verlag and Cambridge University Press journals. He earned his doctorate at SUNY at Stony Brook in 1979.
Randy Simon (randy@simontechservices.com) is a physicist with over 30 years of experience in renewable energy technology, materials research, superconductor applications, and a variety of other technical and management areas. He has been an officer of a publicly traded Silicon Valley company, worked in government laboratories, the aerospace industry, and at university research institutions. He holds a PhD in physics from UCLA. Dr. Simon has authored numerous technical papers, magazine articles, energy policy documents, online articles and blogs, radio scripts, and a book, and holds seven patents. He also composes, arranges and produces jazz music.
NYSBA Municipal Lawyer | Fall 2013 | Vol. 27 | No.3
Publication citation
Michaels, RA; and Randy W. Simon. Fracking in New York State: weighing risks and benefits. Albany, New York State Bar Association, NYSBA Municipal Lawyer, 27(3):12-6, Fall 2013;